The unethical indictment of Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry in Travis County (Austin) for the “crime” of trying to force a drunk, power abusing, ethically corrupt district attorney from continuing to head the Public Integrity Unit—quick, now, Democrats…why is this a bad thing?—is a rare opportunity for otherwise incorrigibly biased journalists to show some token integrity and fairness. What is forfeited, after all, by admitting the obvious, that Perry is being railroaded by an abuse of prosecutorial power to derail him politically? Perry is no real threat to win the Presidency, no matter how high his stock is now. We all saw why in 2012.
So the liberal media has no need to play gotcha, and could, for a change, actually do its job: show the public why the indictment is nothing but a political hit job; why it’s a breach of legal ethics, how disgracefully Travis County DA Rosemary Lehmberg has conducted herself; why she is obligated to resign after breaking the law, trying to use her position to intimidate police officers on video, having her law license suspended, and apparently doing nothing about the fact that she is a raging drunk; why having such an individual heading up the agency responsible for public integrity is a threat to the public well-being and the public trust; and why a Governor of any political affiliation doing everything he can to pressure such a miserable and incompetent DA to resign as she had a professional obligation to do is, not merely not criminal, but admirable.
But most of them just can’t bring themselves to do it. So here is the Daily Beast partisan hack news commentary website, the yin on the left to the yang of Tucker Carlson’s partisan hack Daily Caller on the right, which wouldn’t be necessary if there weren’t a Daily Beast, publishing this piece by its partisan hack staffer Mark McKinnon, implying that there may be validity to the indictment, suggesting that Perry did something wrong, and glossing over how disgusting it is that Lehmberg still holds office.
The entire orientation of the article is how effective the indictment will be in derailing Perry, which McKinnon explains with thinly-veiled glee ( as well as contempt for Perry), and it avoids stating clearly that the indictment is wrong. The Beast, in character, frames the essay with the headline “Dirty Politics and Rick Perry.” Cute, and deceitful: the headline is ambiguous enough that the website and the author can claim that they were suggesting that Perry is the victim of dirty politics, as in fact he is. But to those who have just heard that Perry was indicted, and read the headline only—like my wife–will assume that Perry is the wrongdoer.
And that’s exactly what unethical, biased hacks like the Daily Beast and McKinnon want them to assume. They just can’t help themselves, even when being fair, honest and informative…for once…would be so easy.
Ethics Alarms 
http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/politics/article/Perry-aides-offered-Lehmberg-a-job-for-resignation-5428159.php?cmpid=twitter-premium&t=857234212673fef585#/0
According to this story, Governor Perry was willing to offer some mitigation, by offering Lehmberg another job (that presumably did not involve policing public integrity.)
She should have taken the deal.
Come November, a lot of Texas Democrats are going to very fervently wish that Lush Lehmberg had quietly left office.
Of course it isn’t gotcha.
However unlikely Perry is for 2016, the Dems see enough threat in him to stifle him completely. It isn’t enough that he has a low chance, he must have no chance. There could easily be something they anticipate will be polling important in 2016, that Perry may be seen as a front runner on… perhaps immigration or perhaps Texas’ generally free market attitude that has allowed it to weather the recession while other, ahem, less free market states have been dismal.
Don’t underestimate the well rehearsed and well tried leftist play book. They are dangerous professionals at this game.
And to add, the media will (as you have already have commented on) play its role by playing as though indictment is as good as guilty, relying on a civically uneducated (thank you leftwing schooling) populace to not know any better.
How will they spin Rosemary Lehmberg?
Rosemary Lehm-who?
Didn’t you hear Perry’s been indicted for abuse of power? Way more important. His guilt in that is far more important than some no-name woman, you’re just being partisan.
Why Rick Perry Will Be Convicted
http://www.texastotheworld.com/. The attached article gives a new angle to this Perry mess. And while I’m admittedly not a fan, my initial thought was that this smelled partisan and fishy. But this appears to go well beyond Perry attempting to clear out a drunken DA for the good of the community and all involved. He had previously turned a blind eye to this exact behavior twice before, but developed a conscience in the instance where the head of an investigative unit with a huge budget was caught up in appalling and unethical behavior. (We agree here Jack!)
Perhaps we should take the same advise as has been suggested on this site relative to the Ferguson case and wait for the facts. It’s no more a stretch to think the indictment could have legitimacy, than it is to think Wilson is innocent of murder. Is it?
The difference between the two is this.
If what the police did in Ferguson is true as alleged, then it would be wrong. That is why there is an investigation- to determine whether or not the shooting was justified, or if it went down exactly as alleged.
With Perry, he is alleged to have threatened the use of a veto to convince Rosemary Lehmberg to resign, because she was convicted of drunk driving and was, in Perry’s judgment, unfit to continue as head of the public integrity unit. There need to be no further investigation, because taking the allegation as true, Perry did nothing wrong in this instance.
I might be not reading this correctly (not enough coffee yet!) but the threat of veto is only one part of what got him indicted, no? They’re calling the offering of another more lucrative job the equivalent of a bribe. Legally accurate if inelegant? I truly don’t know….
Funny, I read elsewhere that Perry’s offer of another job was proof of an attempt at bi-partisan fairness by Perry. I can’t see anyone seriously making the argument that in politics offering anyone one job to get them out of another they aren’t qualified for is a bribe. Did Obama bribe Hillary by offering her State so she wouldn’t be taking pot-shots at him for four years? Talk about criminalizing politics. In any event, I can’t find any briber allegations in the indictment, which is about “coercion.”
Let us think about it, if this claim were true.
Rosemary Lehmberg was given a second chance- a second chance to redeem herself, to rebuild her honor, decency, integrity, and character.
It would have been foolishness compounded upon foolishness to not take it.
The information is useful, the conclusions of the article are partisan and silly.
1) OK, Perry was wrong not to kick out the two GOP DAs who had drunk driving convictions, though we aren’t told if they a) threatened the arresting officers on video b) were suspended from the practice of law or c) headed up a Public Integrity Unit. If they did not, then Perry can credibly (I wouldn’t believe him) say that he just drew the line at Lehmberg’s more egregious conduct. But for the sake of argument, let’s say they did exactly what this drunken DA did. Perry was wrong then, and right now. Or is the argument that once having failed his duty to the public in a certain respect, a governor is obligated to keep doing so, or be indicted? Weak, a rationalization rather than an argument.
b) The other argument is worse, as it endorses a Catch 22. So Perry is obligated to not require an unequivocal corrupt, drunken, position abusing, suspended DA from heading a public integrity unit to resign because the Unit might investigate him? Ridiculous! She should be immune from doing the ethical thing because she is in a position to go after Perry?
1) He was wrong the first time, and because of this, it calls into question his motives this time. Granted, he should strive to consistently do the right thing. But I think we’d both agree, that “ethics train” has left the station! If the only reason for the current indictment is related to his conduct as it relates to fulfilling his duties in this regard, then I’m back to partisan/fishy and don’t like it.
2) Without knowing much of the specifics, my guess is that he wanted control of the unit not necessarily to head off an investigation of himself, but to be in a position to control the unit and the associated funding, as well as the ability to passively control the agenda this office would pursue. Is this behavior, if true, illegal, unethical, simply the way they conduct politics in Texas? Parts of all three?
1. It may call into question a lot of things, but it proves nothing. In government especially, we cannot penalize officials for doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, because there are unethical reasons lurking in most decisions, and there is no way to separate them from the whole. The question is, was this the right thing to do? If the answer is yes, and in this case it is, that ends the inquiry. Lincoln may not have ended slavery (in the states where he couldn’t enforce the ban) for the right reasons—so what? It was still an ethical decision.
2. Why would you guess that? That assumes a level of corruption that just isn’t there, either in this case or in Perry’s past conduct.
Well, sure it isn’t proof. But it hasn’t been fully investigated yet has it? Are you saying that the indictment should not consider any factors other than what they can prove at this time? And unless you call an indictment a penalty, he hasn’t yet been sanctioned. he’s being made to account for his actions. If and when he’s convicted, that would be a fair point to discuss. Are we also to assume that most of Perry’s behavior to this point has been ethical? If so, and I’m not certain of this but doubt it, then he should be judged in that context, and he’d have the ethical high road. I’m simply not willing to give him that. Not yet anyway. As for point two, I might be confusing unethical behavior with corruption. (your word) Certainly, we’ve all done things that may have been less than ethical, but didn’t rise to corruption. I see a lot of political behavior in this vein. Especially as it relates to the awarding of contracts, and who has access to opportunities to make money-usually tax payer money. Ethically ambiguous, but short of corruption. But sure as hell a slippery slope….
I don’t even think it’s evidence. It’s after the fact bootstrapping of an indictment completely at odds with both the intent of law (which has its own problems), that criminalizes both political speech, governing tools and speculative motives behind a veto. I think the special prosecutor is vulnerable to legal ethics charges.
At a minimum, that “new angle” is all innuendo, and so poorly documented that I have neither the time nor energy to neither thoroughly verify or discredit it. What dates were these investigations by the “Cancer Research and Prevention Institute”? Was Perry in office? (I am not from Texas, but a state with its own corruption aplenty that draw my attention). This suggest the author is avoiding inconvenient details that undermine his “narrative”. (For the record, the investigation was in 2012; http://austin.twcnews.com/content/health/289599/public-integrity-unit-launches-criminal-investigation-on-cprit – a statement from Gov. Perry welcomed the investigation).
Further, Governor Perry did not necessarily need to comment on the local District Attorney’s drunk driving arrests, so saying that he “tolerated” this behavior is absurd. In at least one instance, local Republicans were asking for at least one’s resignation within a month (http://www.kaufmanherald.com/news/article_3493d732-afd3-5584-8d53-d0c0212bb99f.html#user-comment-area – Paywall). The highest executive does not need to, and usually shouldn’t, comment on local matters that are otherwise being handled appropriately. However, when the holder of a statewide office is irresponsibly refusing to resign, it become wholly appropriate and necessary for the state’s governor to act.
“First, he used the veto to threaten a public officeholder. This is abuse of the power of his office. Presidents and governors frequently use the possibility of vetoes to change the course of legislation. But that is considerably different than trying to force an elected officeholder to resign. What Perry did, if true, can be politely called blackmail, …”
Begging the question.
“… [H]e may have indulged in bribery. According to sources close to the grand jury, Perry dispatched two of his staffers and one high-profile Democrat to tell Lehmberg if she left her office the governor would reinstate the PIU budget. …”
Which is the obvious and responsible thing to do once the irresponsible holder of the office is removed. Not bribery.
“…One report indicates there may have been a quid pro quo of a new, more lucrative job for the D.A., which is why this case has nothing to do with his right to use the veto.”
Grand juries are presented with all evidence, even the most useless and baseless, because there are very low standards. Prosecutors throw everything they’ve got, because something will stick to convince the jury to indict. That the jury indicts is almost a forgone conclusion if a prosecutor chooses to pursue a case; it is the prosecutor’s duty to chose cases with merit. The Grand Jury is but a formal common-sense check that can be easily manipulated by a malicious prosecutor.
“The indictments, however, have not left the Texas governor chastened… he threatened retaliation for the people involved in getting him into this mess, which is probably another form of official abuse…”
If the allegations are as abusive, Perry, as the governor, has a responsibility to work to remove abuse subordinates. It is truly abysmal for subordinates to place their boss in such a conflict of interest, and might even speak to Perry’s ability to select honest subordinates. Federal intervention will likely be necessary at some point.
The “probably another form of official abuse” is a nice weaselly way of putting it.
“…[B]ut the two senior administrators of his office were convicted… One long-time Austin political operative said that if that were a crime, it was “something that only happened about 1000 times a day in Texas.”
At best, “everybody does it” and many more are criminally raising funds on taxpayer time, at worst, glossing over aggregating factors that made these convictions appropriate compared to other.
Lovely job, and more thorough than the original article deserved.
Lanny Davis speaks.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/state-local-politics/215354-democrats-must-denounce-the-rick-perry-indictment-and
Yes, I’m wrestling with myself whether making Lanny Davis an ethics hero will poison the honor for all time….
That special prosecutor McCrum forced you to defend Rick Perry.
I’m still upset about it.
An update.
http://omnifeed.com/article/www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/24/charges-against-rick-perry-dismissed-by-texas-high-court-on-constitutional-grounds/
I read about that yesterday, Michael. It was inevitable, as the indictment was both spurious and overtly politically motivated. But, as Perry’s people have said, the damage was done. That was the intention and, in that, it was successful.